|
| February 6, 2006 | Monday | Muharram 7, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
A milestone judgment
Egyptian ferry disaster
Hamas victory: need for flexibility
THE recent Hamas victory in the Palestinian election has stunned everyone including Hamas itself. Although pre-election opinion polls had indicated that Hamas would give a close fight, most analysts had predicted a narrow Fatah victory.
SPEAKING to heads of foreign firms on Friday, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said that Pakistan had made significant headway in trying to attract overseas investors. In this context, he said that economic reforms, investment-friendly policies and availability of skilled human capital had helped to reduce the cost of doing business in Pakistan. He also spoke of an investment of two billion dollars being made in the telecom sector — a claim that should be taken with some reservations given PTCL’s on-off privatization. While Mr Aziz’s remarks may well be true, and partly reflect the fact that he was speaking to potential investors to whom he would want to present a favourable picture, the amount of foreign direct investment that Pakistan receives is quite small compared to what other emerging economies are receiving.
A study last month of top destinations for foreign direct investment (FDI) had China ranked first, followed by India and then the US. China came out on top thanks to its rapidly growing reputation as a manufacturing powerhouse and home to the world’s fastest growing and largest consumer market while India achieved its best ranking to date because of its IT and telecom sectors. So the question that comes to mind is that if India can do so well, what is holding us back, other than that we have a smaller domestic consumer market. As Mr Aziz said, reforms are underway, projects to expand and improve infrastructure are being undertaken and it does seem that the government has its priorities in place in terms of attracting foreign investment. However, a lot more needs to be done before we begin to realistically compare ourselves to countries like India as a favoured FDI destination. First and foremost, the enabling environment is not quite there so far. Labour costs may be lower than in developed countries but there may be little advantage for us on this count compared to other emerging markets like India or Mexico. Besides, the quality of human capital in terms of education and skill is lower. An educated and literate population translates into an educated and skilled workforce but unfortunately we lag behind in this compared to some other regional countries. So, spending on education in general and on vocational and technical training in particular will have to be increased or else the claim by Mr Aziz of Pakistan having a skilled manpower will sound unconvincing.
Then comes the issue of rule of law and a judicial system that can settle business disputes in a reasonable period of time. Investors tend to shy away from countries where they feel their investment is not given the protection they expect. In the context of Pakistan, this means having a judicial system in which foreign investors have confidence and which they expect will settle disputes promptly. They also want to deal with a bureaucracy which works efficiently and expeditiously. Hence, reducing red tape — especially in key departments like the CBR — and putting in place a fully functional ‘one-window’ system for potential investors could be of great help. Then there is the matter of security and law and order, on which Pakistan tends to suffer much in the eyes of the outside world. This perception — whether accurate or otherwise is not important — will only change if law and order is not just improved but stabilizes to a point where it is no longer a matter of concern.
IN what is being termed a historic judgment, the Federal Shariat Court last Monday directed trial courts and other authorities not to book a woman on charges of adultery if she claimed she was raped. It has done this to check the misuse of the Hudood ordinances which, since they have been promulgated, have been used to persecute innocent women. The trials and tribulations of Mukhtaran Mai and Sonia Naz last year are outstanding examples of the hurdles women face in their pursuit of justice. As is done elsewhere in the world, if a woman accuses a man of rape, the legal process centres on substantiating her charges, not putting the onus of blame on the victim as is done here. With the FSC’s judgment, proceedings on rape will hopefully be conducted in a sensible manner: if a woman’s charges are proved, the rapist will have to be awarded the prescribed punishment and if it is proved that the woman was involved in the offence herself, both parties will have to be charged. To implement this judgment in the right spirit, the investigating agencies will have to do their job properly. If the police were efficient and reliable, more women would feel secure in approaching them, but unfortunately the police are usually the first to victimize the victims and the law does not condemn this harshly enough. Hopefully, with the change in procedure, one will see a favourable change in attitude too.
The court also recognized the many stigmas attached to rape and adultery and rejected the notion that a delay in lodging a case was tantamount to a woman being a liar or a party to adultery, adding that even in western countries, woman were hesitant to immediately file reports. This kind of correct thinking provides a guideline for the judicial system whose focus should be on providing speedy justice to an aggrieved party. For far too long have women been targeted under Hudood laws which have been used on the slightest of pretext to stigmatize women. This judgment is a positive development and should now be followed by paying heed to the call to repeal gender-biased and discriminatory laws.
IT is now confirmed that there were problems with the Egyptian ferry that sank in the Red Sea on Friday. Rescuers were able to save about 400 lives, but that still means that nearly 1,000, most of them Hajis, were drowned. Egyptian officials have ruled out bad weather as the cause of the tragedy — a view shared by shipping experts. What was surprising was the rapidity with which the ship sank. It listed shortly after leaving the Saudi port of Duba but continued sailing for two hours. Then it went on its side and sank within five minutes. Normally, the Red Sea has heavy traffic because of ships passing through the Suez Canal both ways. That was why the ill-fated Al Salam 98’s sister ship, Al Salam 95, had collided with a Cypriot cargo vessel in October last but all passengers were saved. In this case, the ferry sank so quickly that there was hardly any time for ships nearby to save the passengers. The shipping company itself is not clear what caused the disaster. But it is obvious that maintenance was poor. It was built 35 years ago, and there were few life boats on board.
In spite of the advent of airliners, passenger shipping is still a popular mode of travel in many parts of the world, but in the Third World overloading and poor maintenance often cause disaster. In Bangladesh it is not uncommon to hear of tragedies on Eid and other holidays when owners of steamers and country boats load them with passengers much beyond their authorized capacity making them liable to sink — as they often do. The Egyptian tragedy is all the greater because the majority of those drowned were Hajis. Coming in the wake of the Mina stampede on Jan 12 that killed over 350 people, this tragedy should make all Muslim governments focus on the safety of all pilgrims, whatever the mode of transport, and whether it is Mina or a shipping lane.
Hence Fatah’s tally of 36 seats as against Hamas’s 76 has come as a major shock to the international community particularly Israel and the US who are now unsure of how to deal with a party that they had condemned as a terrorist outfit.
Credit should be given to President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ahmed Qorei for resisting the tendency generally found among leaders of the Islamic world of rigging elections, and it is hoped that the disappointment and anger felt by young Fatah militants on their party’s defeat will soon subside and that they will refrain from any action that could lead to a clash between them and Hamas supporters. Such an undemocratic outcome of a democratic election would be a great tragedy for the Palestinians and a victory for the Israelis who have been trying for a long time to spark off civil war in the occupied territories.
The Hamas leaders, while celebrating their victory, have shown maturity by inviting Fatah leaders to join them in a government of national unity. One hopes that Fatah and Hamas arrive at a mutually satisfactory agreement as the common goal of freedom and independence should be given priority over all other considerations. Both Fatah and Hamas have given enormous sacrifices for the cause of a Palestinian state. The liberation of Gaza was the result of a combined struggle. Therefore, it would be a mistake if Fatah in its ire over the loss of the election were to withhold its cooperation from Hamas at such a crucial juncture in the Palestinian struggle for freedom and statehood.
It is true that by refusing to lay down arms and end armed resistance when Fatah was in power, Hamas had defied a legal authority. This gave Israel an excuse to continue its atrocities against the Palestinians to the point of imprisoning Arafat in his compound in Ramallah and burying the Oslo accord. The point is that then Hamas was just a movement and not an opposition party and even if it had laid down arms and ended the resistance, Israel would not have stopped its atrocities, terminated the illegal occupation of the West Bank and agreed to the creation of a viable Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
After all, the PLO had accepted all these conditions 10 years ago but to no avail. The fact is that the Israelis have never been sincere about seeking a just peace on the basis of UNSC resolution 242. Therefore, Fatah should not try to get even with Hamas now for what it did when Fatah was in power. The will of the Palestinian people must be respected no matter what the Israelis and the Americans demand as preconditions for dealing with Hamas.
All said and done, the primary responsibility for creating inter-Palestinian harmony and stability rests on the Hamas leadership. Their landslide victory can either make them arrogant and dismissive of their opponents or infuse them with humility and maturity. The former will cause them and the entire Palestinian nation great harm while the latter will unite the Palestinians, win them greater support from their own people and give them added negotiating strength. There should be no doubt in the mind of any Hamas leader that national unity is the need of the hour and should be their first priority. As winners of the election it is their first and foremost responsibility to bring about reconciliation among the Palestinians no matter how much patience it may require.
In order to achieve that objective Hamas must stand behind President Mahmoud Abbas whose resignation is being demanded by Fatah militants. His lifelong struggle for Palestinian freedom and independence cannot be challenged by anyone. He, too, is an elected leader and must be allowed to complete his tenure and carry on negotiations with the Israelis.
The Hamas leaders must make every possible effort to bring other Fatah leaders, who are not tainted by corruption, into a national unity council, even if they will not join a Hamas-led government, to present a united front to the Israelis and their ally the US. A joint Palestinian front under a leadership elected in a free, fair and democratic election would give the Palestinians more negotiating power than hundreds of missiles, suicide bombers, tanks and war planes.
Also, Hamas should transform its image from a hard-line uncompromising “resistance movement” to a pragmatic government. The task will not be easy for any softening of its attitude towards Israel will be opposed by its rank and file who will feel angry and blame it for betraying the cause. But the Hamas leadership ought to realize and convince their supporters that they cannot fight Israel with guns alone.
There is no doubt that without incessant resistance Israel will not yield. But resistance must be pragmatic and mixed with new tactics and strategies to suit their ultimate purpose. They should know that the slogans of yesterday that won them the support of Palestinians have also caused worldwide concern. And they can no longer disregard world opinion in their new capacity as an elected government. Before the elections Hamas had three main objectives: the destruction of Israel, no negotiations with it and the continuation of armed resistance.
However, now it needs to show some flexibility and greater realism in order not to give Israel the pretext to use these slogans to usurp more Palestinian lands in the name of security. Everyone knows that the destruction of Israel is not in the realm of possibility and Hamas is not serious about it. Nevertheless, such slogans give Israel an opportunity to win the diplomatic battle and kill Palestinians with impunity, destroy their homes, annex their lands and further consolidate their illegal occupation by creating more “facts on the ground”.
In 1967, Egyptian President Nasser made empty blusters against Israel, blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba and threatened it with war. In the event Israel used this to launch an attack on Egypt. It inflicted a humiliating defeat on three Arab countries and occupied huge tracts of Arab and Palestinian land, which Israel continues to occupy illegally till today.
In 1978, President Sadaat signed the Camp David accord, which included the provision of election of a “self-governing authority by the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza to replace the existing Israeli military government” and the determination of the final status of the West Bank and Gaza through negotiations between Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the “representatives of the West Bank”.
But the PLO rejected the accord with the comments that the Egyptian leader had no right to speak on behalf of the Palestinians. That led Israel to deny Palestinians a chance to win their freedom and create an independent state of their own. Twenty-eight years down the line and having lost thousands of lives and homes and suffered unbearable humiliation they are standing at the same spot as in 1978 with no prospects of Israel going back to the 1967 borders.
In other words, Hamas should adopt a pragmatic approach and renounce some of its unrealistic slogans such as the destruction of Israel and its non-recognition of Israel so that the latter does not have a pretext to further erode the possibility of the creation of a viable Palestinian state.
Hamas leaders have said that they will continue to observe the ceasefire, which is a good decision. They should also express their willingness to negotiate with Israel through President Mahmoud Abbas. That the latter is trusted by the Israelis and Americans is no reason to think that he will betray the Palestinian cause. He rightly believes that now is the time for the peaceful pursuit of peace as it would be a more successful strategy than military confrontation. That does not mean that Hamas gives up its right to armed resistance. It only means a willingness to talk while remaining determined to resist Israeli aggression.
Hamas leaders have already begun to indicate that they understand the complex and multifaceted nature of the internal and external challenges that they will have to cope with successfully to translate their election victory into hope within and peace without on the difficult road to a viable Palestinian state. In a recent article, Mousa Abu Marzook, deputy political bureau chief of Hamas, wrote, “alleviating the debilitative condition of occupation and not an Islamic state is at the heart of our mandate (with reform and change as its lifeblood)... ‘a new “roadmap’ is needed to lead us away from the path of checkpoints and walls and onto the path of freedom and justice... we will exert good-faith efforts to remove the bitterness that Israeli occupation has succeeded in creating ... there must come a day when we will live together, side by side once again”.
At the same time, Khaled Meshaal, the overall leader of Hamas, responding to the Quartet’s statement echoed by the EU foreign minister that future EU assistance to the Palestinian Authority would depend on recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence and acceptance of all previous agreements by Hamas, said that “Hamas is immune to bribery, intimidation and blackmail”. She deserved that response for not showing any sensitivity to the feelings of millions of self-respecting Hamas supporters and pre-judging Hamas before seeing what it does after assuming power.
Nevertheless, Hamas will need to bring about a change in its stand to win the trust and confidence of the world and deny Israel the opportunity to commit aggression and look good at the same time.
History, ancient and recent, is full of instances when pragmatism and diplomacy have worked where war and conflict have failed.
The writer is a former ambassador.